wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

OK we now have the 1st June 2010 water quality test results for Shanklin,  are we are talking swimming in sewage?

The results taken from the Environment Agency Website are as follows:

Total coliforms (colonies / 100ml) 1st June Result: 15000 Fifteen Thousand!  Whereas the higher, recommended guideline standards is no more than 500 per 100ml.  And the legal minimum mandatory standards permit a maximum of 10,000 per 100ml

Faecal coliforms (colonies / 100ml) 12600, Twelve Thousand Six Hundred! The higher recommended guideline standards is no more than 100 per 100ml.  And the legal minimum mandatory standards permits no more that 2,000 per 100ml

Faecal streptococci (colonies / 100ml) 800 whereas the higher, recommended guideline standards is no more than 100 per 100ml

Now Thats What We Call Failing - Way To Go Shanklin

So is it safe to swim?

Im afraid you will have to ask the council yourselves on that one as I am "Blacklisted"

The Information on the UK Blue Flag website states:

"The guideline, or recommended, standards consider faecal coliform, total coliform and faecal streptococci: Total coliform no more than: 500 per 100 ml

Faecal coliform no more than: 100 per 100 ml

Faecal streptococci no more than: 100 per 100 ml"

Which is the same as given above. It goes on to state:

"To achieve this overall result for a season 80% of all the samples (16 out of 20) must be equal to, or better than, the above standards for total and faecal coliform and 90% (18 out of 20) must be equal to, or better than, the above standard for faecal streptococci. The water must also comply with the legal minimum standard. It is this guideline standard that is required for a Blue Flag at a resort beach."

So it appears there is quite a leaway for the water failing the test including a 20% failure rate! But no mention of extreme cases of failing the tests. However the description given for the red smiley face (for failing the test)  states that:

"The test(s) failed the legal minimum standards and it is not recommended for swimming"

Quite how a Blue Flag Award beach cannot be recommended for swimming yet remain an Award beach is beyond me, and whether the Award has to be withdrawn until such time as the water quality returns to being suitable for swimming is another mystery that may well be buried in the 39 pages of the Award criteria. Or somewhere in the UK additions to that.

But it is far from clear to this simple country boy at least.

One things for sure though these results not becoming available on the Internet until over a week after they are taken is hardly of any use to the people who were swimming in the sea at Shanklin on the 1st June. But at least Shanklin being a Blue Flag beach ensured that my dog wouldnt have been in the sea there, as I certainly wouldnt have wanted him taking that risk given the pollution.